(COVID/ETC CONTENT HERE) China Locks Down 11 Million in Wuhan,

Can't say I'm surprised people don't have a problem with this. After all, the clause in the constitution that says "the government can do whatever it wants if there's an emergency" is well known and honored in our culture. I guess that's why you all have turned in your guns after every mass shooting and support government in every action?

Originally Posted by FromMyColdDeadHand

Disagree. You don't do mass functions during a pandemic. Religious or not. If you said Church functions only, or it extended past the pandemic, then you could get injunctive relief. Otherwise, one of societies and govt's base functions is the common health. Literally prehistoric.

All I know is, those people better go to the back of line for vents. A choir in the PacNW that met on March 10 has 46 of 48 people sick with two dead and they supposedly spaced and Purelled.

If you are banning all big events, it means all big events.

"Essential businesses" are still open, even if they have more than X number of employees. Churches have a Constitutional explicit protection, businesses don't. Once you start violating rights for one group because you don't consider them "essential" it's one helluva slippery slope.

Originally Posted by Heavyweight

Completely disagree. This is not a new concept.

Heavyweight

So is tyranny, and using an emergency to cloak it doesn't make it right.

Originally Posted by FromMyColdDeadHand

Yep. When someone is building in church, do they get to ignore building codes because otherwise it would be a first amendment issue? Nope. Can you start a religion where you get to kill strangers? I guess only if it’s during a pandemic.

No one forced anyone to come to the church, they just didn't prohibit them from coming. Unless you can show that someone knowingly was a carrier and came to the church with the intention of infecting others, your "religion where you get to kill strangers" comment is completely baseless.



For those of you that think this is OK, where does it stop? If a shooter made threats about targeting churches, could the government shut down all churches for their own safety? What about a bomber? Or would they have to target all gatherings, except ones the government feels are essential?

Would this support extend if the reason for the banning of mass gatherings was to halt the spread of a dangerous idealogy? If the Constitution doesn't mean a damn thing whenever the government feels it has good reason to do whatever, what's the damn point?

Originally Posted by Alpha-17

Can't say I'm surprised people don't have a problem with this. After all, the clause in the constitution that says "the government can do whatever it wants if there's an emergency" is well known and honored in our culture. I guess that's why you all have turned in your guns after every mass shooting and support government in every action?



"Essential businesses" are still open, even if they have more than X number of employees. Churches have a Constitutional explicit protection, businesses don't. Once you start violating rights for one group because you don't consider them "essential" it's one helluva slippery slope.



So is tyranny, and using an emergency to cloak it doesn't make it right.



No one forced anyone to come to the church, they just didn't prohibit them from coming. Unless you can show that someone knowingly was a carrier and came to the church with the intention of infecting others, your "religion where you get to kill strangers" comment is completely baseless.



For those of you that think this is OK, where does it stop? If a shooter made threats about targeting churches, could the government shut down all churches for their own safety? What about a bomber? Or would they have to target all gatherings, except ones the government feels are essential?

Would this support extend if the reason for the banning of mass gatherings was to halt the spread of a dangerous idealogy? If the Constitution doesn't mean a damn thing whenever the government feels it has good reason to do whatever, what's the damn point?

Excellent points.

Originally Posted by Alpha-17

For those of you that think this is OK, where does it stop? If a shooter made threats about targeting churches, could the government shut down all churches for their own safety? What about a bomber? Or would they have to target all gatherings, except ones the government feels are essential?

Would this support extend if the reason for the banning of mass gatherings was to halt the spread of a dangerous idealogy? If the Constitution doesn't mean a damn thing whenever the government feels it has good reason to do whatever, what's the damn point?

Your analogies are over the top and unrealistic. The 1st amendment doesn’t guarantee the right for a church to remain open during times of national emergency. It guarantees the right of the INDIVIDUAL to practice the religion of his choosing free from government persecution. You can worship at home during this crisis. My church is putting out services online.

Just what do you think a quarantine should be? You clearly have not an bit of medical knowledge so you don’t address the massive public danger from COVID19 in your argument. To allow mass gathering is to continue to spread the disease! The constitution allows for common sense. You should too.

Heavyweight

Originally Posted by FromMyColdDeadHand

Disagree. You don't do mass functions during a pandemic. Religious or not. If you said Church functions only, or it extended past the pandemic, then you could get injunctive relief. Otherwise, one of societies and govt's base functions is the common health. Literally prehistoric.

Interestingly enough...

https://www.foxnews.com/us/coronavir...o-mayor-threat

Religious leaders are expressing concern after New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio threatened to close places of worship if they violated the coronavirus stay-at-home order.

Days before a pastor in Florida was arrested for holding crowded services, de Blasio singled out synagogues and churches saying he would shut them down if they continued to meet during the coronavirus outbreak.

"[Law enforcement] will inform them they need to stop the services and disperse," de Blasio, a Democrat, said at his March 27 press briefing. "If that does not happen, they will take additional action up to the point of fines and potentially closing the building permanently."

He added: “It's the last thing I would like to do because I understand how important people's faiths are to them, and we need our faiths in this time of crisis, but we do not need gatherings that will endanger people. No faith tradition endorses anything that endangers the members of that faith.”

Now, I don't agree with the "permanent" closure, but de Blasio does have a point about religions not endangering the faithful. We like to claim leftists and others along those lines are lemmings that would follow blindly, but there are just as many on the right that would do the same thing. "Jesus will protect you!" some clergy will claim (and have claimed like in Florida) and people will believe that. Don't think Christian religions can sway people into believing anything? Jim Bakker says hello.

Churches can just as easily do YouTube channels or livestream the services on any number of platforms. This defiance of government in continuing services at a church and mass gathering makes no sense other than being little more than an attention whore trying to get their 15 minutes of fame. At no point in the New Testament does it say one has to attend a church to worship and celebrate one's faith. It says to worship, but at no point does it mandate going to a church to do so.

These so called "spiritual leaders" do not have their "flocks" best interests at heart. There is absolutely zero reason with the technology we have today for anyone to have to attend a worship services inside a building with others.

Ermahgerd! Russia!

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/rus...virus-pandemic

Russia is sending a plane filled with medical equipment to the United States to help fight the coronavirus following a phone conversation between President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin on Monday.

The Russian Embassy Tuesday posted on its social media channels that "Russia may send a plane with medical equipment and protection gear to the United States already on Tuesday," citing the Russian news agency TASS. Reuters later reported that Russian state TV was saying the flight had taken off early Wednesday morning.

This comes after Trump indicated, without much context, that Russia was sending some sort of medical aid in his Monday coronavirus task force briefing.

"And I have to say, we've had great relationships with a lot of countries," Trump said. "China sent us some stuff, which was terrific. Russia sent us a very, very large planeload of things, medical equipment, which was very nice."

An An-124 does have some serious hauling capacity.

Why anyone would believe anything the Chinese have to say I don't know but:

Dr. Birx Claims U.S. Was Slow to Respond to Coronavirus Outbreak Because China Withheld a ‘Significant Amount of Data’

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/...mount-of-data/

Originally Posted by Heavyweight

Your analogies are over the top and unrealistic. The 1st amendment doesn’t guarantee the right for a church to remain open during times of national emergency. It guarantees the right of the INDIVIDUAL to practice the religion of his choosing free from government persecution. You can worship at home during this crisis. My church is putting out services online.

Just what do you think a quarantine should be? You clearly have not an bit of medical knowledge so you don’t address the massive public danger from COVID19 in your argument. To allow mass gathering is to continue to spread the disease! The constitution allows for common sense. You should too.

Heavyweight

Apologies for my snippy comments. I don’t know what your level of medical expertise is. I just disagree with your comments. And my closing line might be taken out of context. I agree that the Bill Of Rights should be absolute. I just disagree with your interpretation of the 1st amendment. I will try to be more civil in my responses.

Take care....Heavyweight

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Does anyone know where the "except in times of emergency" clause is in the Constitution? I am having trouble finding it.

Originally Posted by tower59

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Does anyone know where the "except in times of emergency" clause is in the Constitution? I am having trouble finding it.

I think that means Congress can’t establish a national religion or prohibit you from practicing whatever you want. Temporarily shutting down brick and mortar structures doesn’t infringe on that ability. IMHO....

I'm changing my mind. Let's not do anything. Go about like normal and whomever dies dies, regardless of the reason